As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats

11415161719

Posts

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.

    Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.

    BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.

    Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.

    Ah yes, there's that trademarked liberal tolerance, wishing death upon those you disagree with so you can get your way.

    Yes, I'm intolerant of despicable people who have the power to enact their despicable agenda without having to answer to anyone. If the only way for them to stop ruining the country is for them to resign or die, I'll wish for both. Your disdain, lack of approval, or hand-waving at supposed hypocrisy means jack shit to me.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I've said this before whenever hatred of the courts come up: why do whackos assaniate presidents but not swing judges on the Supreme court? If you're going to be a collossal fuckwad assasin, at least get the most bang for your...well, bang I guess by waiting until the legislative is set up in support of your viewpoint and icing the element of the court you dislike?

    JihadJesus on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I've said this before whenever hatred of the courts come up: why do whackos assaniate presidents but not swing judges on the Supreme court? If you're going to be a collossal fuckwad assasin, at least get the most bang for your...well, bang I guess by waiting until the legislative is set up in support of your viewpoint and icing the element of the court you dislike?

    whackos are not known for being terribly knowledgeable of the legislative process

    Rust on
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    He's being practical. They wont retire because of the consequences for their side. They'd have to kick it, unfortunately.

    Sandra did it. So did Stevens and Souter. Ginsburg has all but promised to step down any term now. Yes, justices typically like to retire under presidents of the same party as those who nominated them, but stuff happens (see e.g. Stevens and Souter).

    Its consistent if you think of their political leanings now as opposed to back when they were appointed. Since the court has been moving slowly to the right for the better part of 100 years, justices who were appointed by Republicans way back are now the left wing of the court.

    Dr Mario Kart on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    I've said this before whenever hatred of the courts come up: why do whackos assaniate presidents but not swing judges on the Supreme court? If you're going to be a collossal fuckwad assasin, at least get the most bang for your...well, bang I guess by waiting until the legislative is set up in support of your viewpoint and icing the element of the court you dislike?

    There was a movie about something like that happening. Can't remember the name of it though.

    EDIT: The Pelican Brief, apparently, and it's not quite the same scenario.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.

    Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.

    BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.

    Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.

    Ah yes, there's that trademarked liberal tolerance, wishing death upon those you disagree with so you can get your way.

    Yes, I'm intolerant of despicable people who have the power to enact their despicable agenda without having to answer to anyone. If the only way for them to stop ruining the country is for them to resign or die, I'll wish for both. Your disdain, lack of approval, or hand-waving at supposed hypocrisy means jack shit to me.

    You are a horrible human being.

    mrdobalina on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    It's also why I hope that Scalia and Thomas kick the bucket in the next couple years. The SC would be demonstrably better without them.

    Can't we (you) wish for their retirement instead? Their judicial philosophies are misguided, but we shouldn't want them dead for it.

    BTW, Kennedy and Scalia have like ten years on Thomas. Either of them would give you a liberal majority. And to keep things on topic, just imagine how woefully democrats will handlethe nomination process for any of the conservative or swing seats. Now, that will be nuclear war on the Hill.

    Those guys are going to serve on the court until they die, especially if a Democrat is in office. They are actively harming the country and undermining the political process and the Constitution. So no, I don't feel bad about hoping they pass on, and soon.

    Ah yes, there's that trademarked liberal tolerance, wishing death upon those you disagree with so you can get your way.

    Yes, I'm intolerant of despicable people who have the power to enact their despicable agenda without having to answer to anyone. If the only way for them to stop ruining the country is for them to resign or die, I'll wish for both. Your disdain, lack of approval, or hand-waving at supposed hypocrisy means jack shit to me.

    You are a horrible human being.

    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • sterling3763sterling3763 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    He's being practical. They wont retire because of the consequences for their side. They'd have to kick it, unfortunately.

    Sandra did it. So did Stevens and Souter. Ginsburg has all but promised to step down any term now. Yes, justices typically like to retire under presidents of the same party as those who nominated them, but stuff happens (see e.g. Stevens and Souter).

    Its consistent if you think of their political leanings now as opposed to back when they were appointed. Since the court has been moving slowly to the right for the better part of 100 years, justices who were appointed by Republicans way back are now the left wing of the court.

    Again, there are exceptions. Read the Nine and you'll discover that Sandra wanted to follow ideology (she'd grown more liberal) and thus didn't want to resign under the same party (Bush was pres). But she did it anyway because she wanted to take care of her ailing husband. He, of course, forgot all about her (literally, he's got Alzheimer's) and is romancing another dame.

    Ginsburg was considering retiring before Souter, partly to spend time with her husband. Ironically, he just passed away this summer. With him gone, she'll probably stick around longer than otherwise.

    The point is: Real life interferes with the best laid plans. There are thousands of things that could make a SJ retire besides wishing for them to have a heart attack. That said, most of those thousand aren't very pleasant either.

    sterling3763 on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said

    you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.

    maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.

    What. No. A coequal judiciary is what makes us a democracy and not a tyranny of the majority.

    enacting legislation in the face of a lack of popular and policial support is, strictly speaking, undemocratic.

    there are sometimes good reasons for it, but there is always a political price to be paid

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    The bullshit frame that is "legislating from the bench" should stop too. Yet another right wing frame a good number of people buy into.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said

    you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.

    maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.

    What. No. A coequal judiciary is what makes us a democracy and not a tyranny of the majority.

    enacting legislation in the face of a lack of popular and policial support is, strictly speaking, undemocratic.

    there are sometimes good reasons for it, but there is always a political price to be paid
    Well, by this framing having elected representatives and constitutional protections for the overruled minority is undemocratic as well.

    And raging against either of those things is an extremely fringe thing to do.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Well, by this framing having elected representatives and constitutional protections for the overruled minority is undemocratic as well.

    And raging against either of those things is an extremely fringe thing to do.

    there's a fairly immediate recourse to dissatisfaction with an elected representative.

    not so much for a supreme court decision.

    don't get me wrong; i agree with the outcome of the two decisions i mentioned. i would vote for legislators who supported them. i would pull "yes" on the referendum and knock on doors.

    but fundamentally, judicial appeal has become an unhealthy approach to governance. it's not jsut liberals who do it - in fact, since the warren court, republicans have been assiduous about jealously accumulating judicial power and denying even appeals or circuit court nominees. it's made for terrible decisions that can't be overturned with popular legislation.

    America United could very well destroy our political system, and will certainly corrupt it horribly. It probably had the same level of constitutional reasonableness as did Roe.

    What i'm saying is that it's a lousy way to run a country. I agree that the Republican bitches about judicial activism are self-serving bullshit. But it doesn't feel so great on the other side of things.

    And finally, the fundamental appeal in a democracy should be about moving public attitudes through persuasion and appeal. We seem to have drifted away from this by and large - especially liberals - and seem to be of the mind of "we, a minority, demand this thing of government and the courts," whether it be tea partiers or various minority rights advocates.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    yeah; i missed the responses here, but what CC said

    you end up having a law enacted without majority popular support, without political support, without institutional support and without any real mandate to then try to build popular support.

    maybe you're convinced it's "right" or "the only way (right now)." And maybe you're right! But, regardless, it's an end-run around the democratic process and ends up having political consequences.

    What. No. A coequal judiciary is what makes us a democracy and not a tyranny of the majority.

    enacting legislation in the face of a lack of popular and policial support is, strictly speaking, undemocratic.

    there are sometimes good reasons for it, but there is always a political price to be paid

    But in those cases, there's also always a price to be paid for inaction, as well. Because we couldn't address it either through Congress or in the Courts, the institution of slavery lasted a whole lot longer than it should have, and we eventually found that we could only enforce the rights of the minority in the face of the tyranny of the majority by means of a civil war.

    I much prefer legislating from the bench to legislating by the bayonet.

    ***

    In other news, looks like TARP's final cost is actually going to be somewhere around $30-50 billion instead of the $700 billion that was authorized in 2008. Regardless of how that plays out for Democrats thank fucking God.

    SammyF on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It's a good thing we're not a pure democracy

    case in point florida

    nexuscrawler on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It's a good thing we're not a pure democracy

    case in point florida
    Also; California

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    TL;DR-- how the hell do you run a party that believes the opposition's narratives?
    You don't.

    Dems, for my general agreement with the party on the issues, are terrible at actually being politicians.

    We lack will. We lack direction. We lack swagger.

    '08 was the closest I've ever seen Dems come to really being the "we're right, dammit, and we're tired of not being listened to so just sit the fuck down" party that they need to be to fix the country. And that's all gone up in smoke in the last two years.

    We need a generation of tough, asskicking Dems and we need them soon.


    In addressing this point, I apologize if what I'm about to say has already been covered (don't have the time to wade through 30 pages right now). The problem, though, was clearly identified this past Sunday on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer. The Democrat he was talking with (I can't remember the fellow's name) stated that the problem was two-fold. First, the Democrat position is usually nuanced, requiring more explanation to demonstrate why it's the correct position. It's harder to break down into a 30-second soundbite or talking point that can be repeated ad infinitum until it hypnotizes the national press. Lower taxes! Illegal immigrants! TARP! Second, Democrats generally aren't willing to lie about their opponents' positions, unlike Republicans/Tea-Partiers. Death Panels, anyone? To that, I'll add a third point. Republicans have shown that they are willing to filibuster almost everything in the Senate that the Democrats bring forward, even when the bill in question is substantially similar to past Republican bills, in order to make a Democrat-majority Congress appear to be a "do nothing" Congress. Democrats apparently aren't willing to do that.

    Brian888 on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    Are you actually trying to equate Osama bin Laden with Roberts and Scalia, that wishing death upon any one of them is morally equivalent to the other?

    mrdobalina on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    Are you actually trying to equate Osama bin Laden with Roberts and Scalia, that wishing death upon any one of them is morally equivalent to the other?

    EDIT: Eh, I'll take this to PMs to avoid the mod wrath....

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    except that when we empower the courts as a policy-making branch we end up with the inevitability of established power blocs taking over the judiciary and then using it to maintain an ossified status quo in the face of public opposition.

    Especially since a casual reading of the constitution reveals a really old and sometimes quite short-sighted document that can easily be swung around to support a regressively conservative viewpoint.

    do you think that Iran's courts, for instance, are a progressive institution?

    It was an enormous misstep for liberals to throw in with the courts in the 60s. They were mostly used as political cover for liberal politicians who could and should have rallied to the cause through legislation.

    Now, there are certainly times when constitutional restrictions need to be clarified. Sometimes laws need to be abridged or sent back or struck down or whatever else. That's the role of the courts.

    Enacting political or policy change is the role of the legislative branch, and thereby, the citizenry.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    Exactly. Ignoring how the idea of liberty has recently been perverted to mean that nobody should be forced to pay taxes, basic freedoms are essentially useless if you can only use them to do, say or believe what the majority condescends to allow. The beauty of the judiciary is that it is, by and large, equally accountable to the minority as to the majority and thus may more-freely consider multiple perspectives on any given issue.

    It's actually probably the most deliberative and thoughtful body in the Federal Government for this reason. Everyone's forced consider multiple points of view -- and it even publishes the viewpoints of members who dissent along with the majority conclusion!

    SammyF on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Especially since a casual reading of the constitution reveals a really old and sometimes quite short-sighted document that can easily be swung around to support a regressively conservative viewpoint.
    It can also easily swing around and support a progressive viewpoint. It works to restrict the rest of the government in what it can do. Without such restrictions, any constitutional guarantees that anybody gives a shit about are meaningless. The legislature would be allowed to fuck over any minority groups like they attempted to do with Catholics, Germans, etc.

    Couscous on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    Exactly. Ignoring how the idea of liberty has recently been perverted to mean that nobody should be forced to pay taxes, basic freedoms are essentially useless if you can only use them to do, say or believe what the majority condescends to allow. The beauty of the judiciary is that it is, by and large, equally accountable to the minority as to the majority and thus may more-freely consider multiple perspectives on any given issue.

    It's actually probably the most deliberative and thoughtful body in the Federal Government for this reason. Everyone's forced consider multiple points of view -- and it even publishes the viewpoints of members who dissent along with the majority conclusion!

    Citizen's United was terrible

    Bush v. Gore was terrible

    neither struck me as terrible accountable to political minorities

    these are the future of judicial decisions

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Citizen's United was terrible

    Bush v. Gore was terrible

    neither struck me as terrible accountable to political minorities

    these are the future of judicial decisions
    You cannot predict the future of the court. Nobody in the 1920s would think it would suddenly start allowing much more regulations of businesses.

    Couscous on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited October 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Especially since a casual reading of the constitution reveals a really old and sometimes quite short-sighted document that can easily be swung around to support a regressively conservative viewpoint.
    It can also easily swing around and support a progressive viewpoint. It works to restrict the rest of the government in what it can do. Without such restrictions, any constitutional guarantees that anybody gives a shit about are meaningless. The legislature would be allowed to fuck over any minority groups like they attempted to do with Catholics, Germans, etc.

    right

    the point is that the constitution does not really illustrate the kind of country we have. it can be interpreted this way and that way. sometimes the courts have interpreted the constitution in such a way as to produce the kind of country i would like us to be. lately, they have not.

    do you really think that the interpretation of the scalias, the roberts, the alitos and thomases should guide the way the country should be?

    do you really advocate for that kind of crapshoot? those fuckers are young. they're gonna outlive all the liberals on the court.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    except that when we empower the courts as a policy-making branch we end up with the inevitability of established power blocs taking over the judiciary and then using it to maintain an ossified status quo in the face of public opposition.

    Especially since a casual reading of the constitution reveals a really old and sometimes quite short-sighted document that can easily be swung around to support a regressively conservative viewpoint.

    do you think that Iran's courts, for instance, are a progressive institution?

    It was an enormous misstep for liberals to throw in with the courts in the 60s. They were mostly used as political cover for liberal politicians who could and should have rallied to the cause through legislation.

    Now, there are certainly times when constitutional restrictions need to be clarified. Sometimes laws need to be abridged or sent back or struck down or whatever else. That's the role of the courts.

    Enacting political or policy change is the role of the legislative branch, and thereby, the citizenry.
    But when the Legislative branch, and thereby the citizenry, fail to provide for the rights of the minority or observe constitutional requirements then whatever they decided should be law obviously shouldn't be.

    It's the judicial branch's job to correct for that. The only difference between preventing constitutional violations and "legislating from the bench" is which side of the ruling you fall on.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    do you really think that the interpretation of the scalias, the roberts, the alitos and thomases should guide the way the country should be?
    It should guide what the government can do. Even at its worst, the Supreme Court has done much to protect the rights of minorities. Without it, states and the federal government would be free to shit all over even the most basic rights. They would do so.

    Couscous on
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    Are you actually trying to equate Osama bin Laden with Roberts and Scalia, that wishing death upon any one of them is morally equivalent to the other?
    Not at all.

    The US would be much further ahead if Scalia kicked it tomorrow than if Osama did.

    JihadJesus on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    The courts don't make policy. They strike down existing policy which breaks the fundamental law of the land. If Congress wants to try again, they can.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    SammyF wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    More to the point;

    I don't see why we should be lamenting the fact that when the judicial branch is actually doing its job it sometimes runs counter to our faux-democracy. That's kind of the point. If something is fundamentally unconstitutional, and it's actively harming people right now, then it should be overturned. Period.

    The entire reason we have a judicial branch is that we can't trust our representative democracy to constantly get it right.

    Exactly. Ignoring how the idea of liberty has recently been perverted to mean that nobody should be forced to pay taxes, basic freedoms are essentially useless if you can only use them to do, say or believe what the majority condescends to allow. The beauty of the judiciary is that it is, by and large, equally accountable to the minority as to the majority and thus may more-freely consider multiple perspectives on any given issue.

    It's actually probably the most deliberative and thoughtful body in the Federal Government for this reason. Everyone's forced consider multiple points of view -- and it even publishes the viewpoints of members who dissent along with the majority conclusion!

    Citizen's United was terrible

    Bush v. Gore was terrible

    neither struck me as terrible accountable to political minorities

    these are the future of judicial decisions

    This is a fallacious argument, IronWilld. It presupposes that because some Supreme Court decisions are bad, therefore all Supreme Court decisions are bad or that the institution itself is bad. The Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of "Separate But Equal" and justified institutional segregation in 1896 with Plessy v. Ferguson. It also overturned the constitutionality of "Separate But Equal" with Brown v. Board of Education. Is the Supreme Court's rejection of popularly-supported and legislatively-authorized racism any less meaningful because of the same body's support for the constitutionality of popularly-supported and legislatively-authorized racism 60 years earlier? No -- at the end of the day, black kids still got to go to the same schools as white kids, and thank God because it never would have happened otherwise.

    SammyF on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited October 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    Are you actually trying to equate Osama bin Laden with Roberts and Scalia, that wishing death upon any one of them is morally equivalent to the other?
    Not at all.

    The US would be much further ahead if Scalia kicked it tomorrow than if Osama did.

    That this position can even be put forth here without loudly proclaimed disdain from the group is incredibly disgusting.

    For the last couple years I've popped in and out of this forum and seen some pretty out there opinions, but none were so morally reprehensible as this line of thinking. You, wwtMask and anyone else that puts any type of parity between a terrorist and a Supreme Court Justice you disagree with has a lot of growing up to do, and although I've tried to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their line of thinking, yours and his are pretty unfathomable.

    Bottom line is, I can't continue to even partially associate with this kind of bullshit. If the mods are going to start slapping hands for name calling, then I'll save them the trouble and just excuse myself for good.

    mrdobalina on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Please do, you never really added anything to debates to start with, other than a standard "i got mine, fuck off" republican viewpoint.

    A viewpoint which is basically bullshit 95% of the time

    ronzo on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Guys don't compare Osama bin Laden and Justice Scalia

    it gives me a headache and makes me like all of you less

    just don't do it.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Its a pretty simple line of reasoning. Has Osama bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks done more or less damage to our country than the series of far right SC rulings on a variety of topics lead by Scalia?

    While I don't necessarily agree, I can see the argument to be made.

    EDIT: To be clear, conflating the two is silly. Arguing over net damage done isn't.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This requires "damage" to be defined in a weird or dumb way.

    Just don't compare them. It makes you dumb. Start comparing them and then STOP--that pain you feel in your head? That's the dumbness.

    Don't do it.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Like it or not, that's how the Supreme Court is set up. If you think a justice is bad for the country (and most liberals would say that the four conservatives are fucking batshit) you have to wait for them to die or resign to change. And because it's a political institution, those four won't resign and allow Obama to replace them unless they become grievously ill.

    As for the comparison. Osama bin Laden is just not a serious threat to the United States. Even less so now.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This requires "damage" to be defined in a weird or dumb way.

    Just don't compare them. It makes you dumb. Start comparing them and then STOP--that pain you feel in your head? That's the dumbness.

    Don't do it.

    *shrug* I have no pony in that race.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    5002042490_f76d3f1690_z.jpg

    [strike]Hitler[/strike] Osama

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    There is a reason courts have judicial review of legislation in most countries. Even Britain has judicial review when it comes to laws that violate EU laws or the European Convention on Human Rights.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesbury_unreasonableness#Use_of_this_case
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_English_Law

    Couscous on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm glad you approve, especially because I'm sure you've never hoped for anyone, say Osama Bin Laden, to die.

    Also, considering a lot of the downright terrible things you've espoused in the past, I find this statement rather ironic.

    Are you actually trying to equate Osama bin Laden with Roberts and Scalia, that wishing death upon any one of them is morally equivalent to the other?
    Not at all.

    The US would be much further ahead if Scalia kicked it tomorrow than if Osama did.

    That this position can even be put forth here without loudly proclaimed disdain from the group is incredibly disgusting.

    For the last couple years I've popped in and out of this forum and seen some pretty out there opinions, but none were so morally reprehensible as this line of thinking. You, wwtMask and anyone else that puts any type of parity between a terrorist and a Supreme Court Justice you disagree with has a lot of growing up to do, and although I've tried to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their line of thinking, yours and his are pretty unfathomable.

    Bottom line is, I can't continue to even partially associate with this kind of bullshit. If the mods are going to start slapping hands for name calling, then I'll save them the trouble and just excuse myself for good.

    I actually mentioned Bin Laden to see if you thought wishing someone dead was ever okay to do. I mean, you support the death penalty, don't you? People who are executed have had far, FAR less negative impact on the lives of American citizens than Scalia and Thomas had. There, is that a better comparison, or are you going to belly-ache about that too? Believe it or not, it's possible to do evil and harm others without killing them.

    EB put it best:
    Like it or not, that's how the Supreme Court is set up. If you think a justice is bad for the country (and most liberals would say that the four conservatives are fucking batshit) you have to wait for them to die or resign to change. And because it's a political institution, those four won't resign and allow Obama to replace them unless they become grievously ill.

    As for the comparison. Osama bin Laden is just not a serious threat to the United States. Even less so now.

    If King George's successor was likely to be more favorable towards the American Colonies, would it have been wrong for the colonists to wish King George dead so they could have better governance? How in the hell is this situation any different?

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
This discussion has been closed.